大学生穿衣Tragedy and the Whole Truthbizarre love triangle
english interview元旦晚会策划 layersBy Aldous Huxley
There were six of them, the best and bravest of the hero’s companions. Turning back from his post in the bows, Odysus was in time to e them lifted, struggling, into the air, to hear their screams, the desperate repetition of his own name. The survivors could only look on helplessly, while Scylla “at the mouth of her cave devoured them, still screaming, still stretching out their hands to me in the frightful struggle.” And Odysus adds that it was the most dreadful and lamentable sight he ever saw in all his “explorings of the pass of the a.” We can believe it; Homer’s brief description (the too poetical simile is a later interpolation) convinces us.
Later, the danger pasd, Odysus and his men went ashore for the night and, on the Sicilian beach, prepared their supper—prepared it, says Homer, ‘expertly.’ The Twelfth Book of the Odysy concludes with the words. “When they had satisfied their thirst and hunger, they thought of their dear companions and wept, and in the midst of their tears slee
p came gently upon them.”
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—how rarely the older literatures ever told it! Bits of the truth, yes; every good book gives us bits of the truth, would not be a good book if it did not. But the whole truth, no. Of the great writers of the past incredibly few have given us that. Homer—the Homer of the Odysy—is one of tho few.
“Truth?” you question. “For example, 2ptember的缩写 + 成绩查询入口2 = 4? Or Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837? Or light travels at the rate of 187,000 miles a cond?” No, obviously, you won’t find much of that sort of thing in literature. The ‘truth’ of which I was speaking just now is in fact no more than an acceptable verisimilitude. When the experiences recorded in a piece of literature correspond fairly cloly with our own actual experiences, or with what I may call our potential experiences—experiences, that is to say, which we feel (as the result of a more or less explicit process of inference from known facts) that we might have had—we say, inaccurately no doubt: “This piece of writing is true.” But this, of cour, is not the whole story. The record of a ca in a text-book of psychology is scienti
fically true, insofar as it is an accurate account of particular events, But it might also strike the reader as being ‘true’ with regard to himlf—that is to say, acceptable, probable, having a correspondence with his own actual or potential experiences. But a text-book of psychology, is not a work of art—or only condarily and incidentally a work of art. Mere verisimilitude, mere correspondence of experience recorded by the writer with experience remembered or imaginable by the reader, is not enough to make a work of art em ‘true.’ Good art posss a kind of super-truth—is more probable, more acceptable, more convincing than fact itlf. Naturally; for the artist is endowed with a nsibility and a power of communication, a capacity to ‘put things across,’ which events and the majority of people to whom events happen, do not posss. Experience teaches only the teachable, who are by no means as numerous as Mrs. Micawber’s papa’s favourite proverb would lead us to suppo. Artists are eminently teachable and also eminently teachers. They receive from events much more than most men receive and they can transmit what they have received with a peculiar penetrative force, which drives their communication deep into the reader’s mind. One of our most ordinary reactions to a good 门罗宣言
piece of literary art is expresd in the formula: “This is what I have always felt and thought, but have never been able to put clearly into words, even for mylf.”飞子
We are now in a position to explain what we mean when we say that Homer is a writer who tells the Whole Truth. We mean that the experiences he records correspond fairly cloly with our own actual or potential experiences—and correspond with our experiences not on a single limited ctor, but all along the line of our physical and spiritual being. And we also mean that Homer records the experiences with a penetrative artistic force that makes them em peculiarly acceptable and convincing.
So much, then, for truth in literature. Homer’s, I repeat, is the Whole Truth. Consider how almost any other of the great poets would have concluded the story of Scylla’s attack on the passing ship. Six men, remember, have been taken and devoured before the eyes of their friends. In any other poem but the Odysy, what would the survivors have done? They, would, of cour, have wept, even as Homer made them weep. But would they previously have cooked their supper and cooked it, what’s more, in a masterly fashion?
Would they previously have drunk and eaten to satiety? And after weeping, or actually while weeping, would they have dropped quietly off to sleep? No, they most certainly would not have done any of the things. They would simply have wept, lamenting their own misfortune and the horrible fate of their companions, and the Canto would have ended tragically on their tears.
Homer, however, preferred to tell the Whole Truth. He knew that even the most cruelly bereaved must eat; that hunger is stronger than sorrow and that its satisfaction takes precedence even of tears. He knew that experts continue to act expertly, and to find satisfaction in their accomplishment, even when friends have just been eaten, even when the accomplishment is only cooking the supper. He knew that when the belly is full (and only when the belly is full) men can afford to grieve and that sorrow after supper is almost a luxury. And finally he knew that, even as hunger takes precedence of grief, so fatigue, supervening, cuts short its career and drowns it in a sleep all the sweeter for bringing forgetfulness of bereavement. In a word, Homer refud to treat the theme tragically. He preferred to tell the Whole Truth.
沃兹尼艾克Another author who preferred to tell the Whole Truth was Fielding. “Tom Jones” is one of the very few Odysan books written in Europe between the time of Aeschylus and the prent age; Odysan, becau never tragical; never—even when painful and disastrous, even when pathetic and beautiful things are happening. For they do happen; Fielding, like Homer, admits all the facts, shirks nothing. Indeed, it is precily becau the authors shirk nothing that their books are not tragical. For among the things they don’t shirk are the irrelevancies which, in actual life, always temper the situations and characters that writers of tragedy insist on keeping chemically, pure. Consider, for example, the ca of Sophy Western, that most charming, most nearly perfect of young women. Fielding, it is obvious, adored her; (she is said to have been created in the image of his first, much-loved wife). But in spite of his adoration, he refud to turn her into one of tho chemically pure and, as it were, focusd beings who do and suffer in the world of tragedy. That innkeeper who lifted the weary Sophia from her hor—what need had he to fall? In no tragedy would he (nay, could he) have collapd beneath her weight. For, to begin with, in the tragical context weight is an irrelevance; heroines should be above th
e law of gravitation. But that is not all; let the reader now remember what were the results of his fall. Tumbling flat on his back, he pulled Sophia down on top of him—his belly was a cushion, so that happily she came to no bodily harm—pulled her down head first. But head first is necessarily legs last; there was a momentary display of the most ravishing charms; the bumpkins at the inn door grinned or guffawed; poor Sophia, when they picked her up, was blushing in an agony, of embarrassment and wounded modesty. There is nothing intrinsically improbable about this incident, which is stamped, indeed, with all the marks of literary truth. But however true, it is an incident which could never, never have happened to a heroine of tragedy. It would never have been allowed to happen. But Fielding refud to impo the tragedian’s veto; he shirked nothing—neither the intrusion of irrelevant absurdities into the midst of romance or disaster, nor any of life’s no less irrelevantly painful interruptions of the cour of happiness. He did not want to be a tragedian. And, sure enough, that brief and pearly gleam of Sophia’s charming posterior was sufficient to scare the Mu of Tragedy out of “Tom Jones,” just as, more than five and twenty centuries before, the sight of stricken men first eating, then rememb
ering to weep, then forgetting their tears in slumber had scared her out of the Odysy.
